Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2011-11-30-Speech-3-050-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20111130.14.3-050-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we are debating the preparations for next week’s European Council. We are doing so following the historic leap forward made by the European Council of 26 October, which in turn followed a historic breakthrough in the summer. What actually remains of the historic breakthrough of 26 October, Mr President and Mr Rehn? The long-term solution, the turning point we were hoping for, has not materialised. I believe that we can now see that.
Answering the question of whether we should actually classify it in that way, or of whether we should really bring the debt into a system of management and reduce it, or of whether we are actually in a position to finance the investments we need by means of bonds in order for the triple A rated states to keep their rating and for those that do not have this rating to achieve it, that must be the goal of the euro area and not a debate about an artificial Treaty reform, which will not ultimately bring about confidence in the euro.
The predicted leveraging of the EFSF by four to five times has – on this scale at least – proved impossible to put into practice. It is being widely realised – I think more so here in Parliament than in the Council and the Commission – that it is not a solution to now talk about a lengthy revision of the Treaty, because this will not solve the current problems. We have been looking for security and confidence – in fact we do that every day. What do we find? Uncertainty! Every day we find a bit more uncertainty.
The current debate is characterised by a perception problem in the capital cities of the European Union. This perception problem in our capitals in connection with this peculiar tendency to want to go it alone, which excludes the European institutions, can be summarised in one sentence: our neighbours’ debts are no concern of ours! That is a serious mistake, however. Our neighbours’ debts concern us all; they burden all of us together.
That is why, instead of talking about the stability union, a growth union, the debt union, we perhaps need to come to the conclusion that we do indeed need the stability union, but we need to realise that without a growth union there will be no stability union in Europe. These are two sides of the same coin.
Our neighbours’ debts concern us because, in a monetary union in which we all stand together, they represent our shared fate. We can talk at length about who caused the debt. In the current situation, however, it is more important for us to discuss how to get rid of it. How can we limit the debt in order to regain the confidence of investors in the euro area and in our currency? I therefore believe that we will only regain this confidence once we achieve joint debt management.
Surprisingly, the Council of Economic Experts of the government of the Federal Republic of Germany made a proposal yesterday for joint debt management, in the same way as in other cases during similar monetary crises: pooling the debt and defining the timeframe within which we will reduce the debt in order then to concentrate on how we achieve what Europe urgently needs more than anything else – growth. We need growth that creates jobs and growth that creates fiscal capacity in the Member States allowing them to obtain their own income once again.
What we need for the next few days, weeks and months is to take bold steps without a revision of the Treaties, because, let us be honest, what would be the result of a revision of the Treaties? We can revise the Treaties, there would be nothing wrong with that, it would all be well and good. However, the argument that a revision of the Treaties will win back the confidence of the markets in the euro means that we would need two years to win back this confidence, because that is how long it would take for the Treaty revision to be complete, with a convention, an intergovernmental conference and a ratification procedure, including referendums in 27 Member States. However, we do not have that much time.
What we need to do now is to answer the following questions: do we want Eurobonds – yes or no? Do we want to support the Commission with regard to Eurobonds? We certainly do, but does the Council too? What is the role of the European Central Bank? Is it a ‘lender of last resort’ or not? It is interesting to hear the German Chancellor say that it is not. It is not a ‘lender of last resort’. She is, of course, acting completely independently, however. That is a direct quote from Ms Merkel. We all know that, with the complete independence with which the European Central Bank acts, it buys government bonds every day. It is already acting as a lender of last resort."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples